United Kingdom

Background: Objective recognition of pain in horses has been studied extensively, however studies on objective pain assessment in donkeys are limited, and the available scales are not validated. Objectives: This study describes scale construction and clinical applicability of a Composite Pain Scale (do-CPS) and a Facial Assessment of Pain scale (do-FAP) for acute pain in donkeys. Study design: observational. Methods: The study included 159 adult donkeys (n = 44 patients, n = 115 control donkeys) which were directly observed at The Donkey Sanctuary. Patients were presented with lameness (24), colic (7), head related pain (7) or post-operative pain (6). Based on equine scales specific potential elements and scores for donkeys were developed in a pilot study. The observers were not involved in donkeys’ clinical management. For each animal, the score of each element in both scales was assessed by two groups of independent observers. When applicable the patients were followed over time, once or twice daily. Patients and control groups were compared by Mann Whitney-U-tests. Results: The inter-observer reliability was strong for do-CPS (R2 = 0.95, p<0.001) and good for do-FAP (R2 = 0.77, p<0.001). Patients had significantly higher pain scores, compared to control donkeys (p<0.001 for both do-FAP and do-CPS). Sensitivity overall for the do-CPS (73%), do-FAP (68%), and specificity do-CPS (99%), do-FAP (75%) were good. Sensitivity and specificity for “lameness” were strong in do-CPS (92% and 100%, respectively). Sensitivity and specificity for “colic” were strong for both do-CPS (71% and 100%, respectively), do-FAP (95% and 79%, respectively). Main limitations: Observers could not be masked to the patients’ condition. More patients are needed with painful conditions other than lameness. These scales will be validated in a planned follow-up research. Conclusions: Objective pain assessment in donkeys is possible and may support objective evaluation of treatment of donkeys with acute pain.

This study examined normal donkey teeth using gross anatomical inspection, computed axial tomography (CAT), radiography, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and, decalcified and undecalcified histology to determine their normal gross anatomy, histology and ultrastructure. CAT findings have shown donkey endodontic anatomy and the density (in Hounslow units) of donkey calcified dental tissues, i.e. enamel, dentine and cementum to be similar to values recorded in horses. Decalcified and undecalcified histology has identified donkey cheek teeth to have a similar histological appearance to that which has been described in the horse. SEM of donkey dental tissue has demonstrated minor differences to normal horse dental ultrastructure. Now that normal donkey dental anatomy has been clearly defined, pathological changes can be identified in diseased teeth and supporting structures and will allow a better understanding of the pathophysiology of common donkey dental disorders. Ultimately the results of this project will enable better dental care specifically developed for donkeys, promoting welfare in the donkey.

Traditional herd health monitoring is based on veterinary morbidity/ mortality figures using historical data from computerised records. The Donkey Sanctuary has responsibility for a large number of rescue and rehomed donkeys on farms whose welfare is high priority. The Donkey Sanctuary has introduced a validated welfare assessment tool to be used four times a year, to monitor animal and resource based measures of welfare (AWIN). This allows information to captured in real time rather than retrospectively and adverse welfare can be identified. Using this tool allows evidence based management changes to be made.

The Donkey Sanctuary is an equine charity whose mission is to “transform the quality of life for donkeys, mules and the people that depend upon them worldwide”. In the UK, The Donkey Sanctuary cares for over 2000 donkeys on a number of farms varying in size from 250-580 animals. The farms aim to rehome up to 10% of their herd annually to guardian (private) homes or donkey assisted therapy centres. The farms also provide a show case for our work to visiting professionals and the public. Welfare of the donkeys on farms is critical to the credibility of The Donkey Sanctuary. Using welfare-based criteria alongside health records has enabled the teams to pro-actively monitor donkey welfare, refine management practices, re-direct budgets and track progress. Since 2017, The Donkey Sanctuary has been using the stage 1 AWIN (Animal Welfare Indicators), which are animal and resource based measures. AWIN is used on a quarterly basis on all farms to evaluate the following AWIN criteria: Appropriate nutrition (body condition score BCS), Absence of injuries (lameness, joint swelling, skin change, prolapse), Absence of disease (hair coat, faecal staining, ocular/nasal discharge, abnormal breathing, cheek teeth palpation), Absence of Pain (hoof neglect, lameness, hot branding), and Human-Animal Relationship (avoidance behaviours, tail tuck). The donkeys chosen are a random 10% at each visit using a named list of donkeys. This data is evaluated alongside information collected from a computer based Animal Management System, where vets input clinical conditions in pre-determined categories to monitor physical health - the main ones aligned are BCS, lameness, colic, hyperlipaemia, sarcoid, eye disease, and mortality rate. Over 1 year at 1 farm with 580 donkeys: AWIN showed (i) loss of weight control over summer with total animals BCS >4 (scale 1-5) increasing from 13% in January to 31% in September, (ii) lameness peaking on turnout (from 6-15% herd), (iii) skin disease (relating to lice burden) decreasing from 32% (winter) to 7 % summer, (iv) hoof neglect (thrush, abscesses) remaining high all year at >50%, (v) avoidance behaviours constant at about 12%- relating to new animals arriving and calm animals leaving. Data is recorded in Excel, and presented graphically and by written documentation. Quarterly meetings with the farm manager and staff enable timely feedback.

Welfare can be benchmarked across farms and improvements aimed for. AWIN is validated and straightforward to use.

We compared spatial problem solving abilities in the mule (Equus asinus x Equus caballus) with that of its parent species to assess the effects of hybridization on cognition. In a detour task the animals(N=48) were required to make a detour through a gap at one end of a straight barrier in order to reach a visible target. After one, two, three or four repeats (A trials), the gap was moved to the opposite end of the barrier (B trials) and deviations from the straight line and the latency to crossing the barrier were recorded. Mules performed significantly above chance level on their first detour, unlike the other two species. We discuss our results with reference to hybrid vigour and to the flexibility of problem solving strategies with regards to species differences.

There is a wealth of research claiming the ‘benefits’ of Equid Assisted Interactions (EAI’s), but these are often anthropocentric and describe ‘improvement’ to the human’s disability as the measurable benefit. This study concentrates on the dyadic relationship between pre or nonverbal autistic children and their donkey partners during interaction sessions.

Prior to clarifying potential ‘benefits’ of EAI, I propose that it is essential to first measure the quality of engagement between heterospecific participants. This provides contextual evidence about the nature of each individual’s behavioural responses relative to the other. Knowing the quality of engagement between participants, creates an opportunity to disentangle variables and interpret the potentially confounding causality of perceived benefits.

By designing and utilising a unique Quality of Engagement Tool (QET) to measure engagement of both donkeys and children, I was able to capture the emerging relationship between human and equid participants. I observed how heterogeneity of character and personal preference, irrespective of species, affected levels of engagement. The tool identified differences in engagement seeking or avoiding that varied, with different partners. The QET was designed to avoid the possibility that one member of the dyad would gain a larger share of observer’s attention, rendering the other partners’ subtle behaviours unintentionally missed by casual observation. This observational bias, possibly quite common in other EAI sessions, meant that welfare concern signals could be unintentionally, hidden in plain sight. Donkeys are generally more stoic than horses and may only display subtle behaviour changes when in pain or fearful. My findings showed that QET enabled subtle nuances to be detected in real-time and decisions made about the suitability, well-being and consent of either participant.

A growing body of work has explored the effect of language on the way animals are perceived and treated by humans. This paper reports the main findings from a systematic study of the language associated with donkeys in British culture and how their representations affect the ways in which these animals are understood and treated. A digitised body of texts (a ‘corpus’) about donkeys was gathered from domains including news, social media, and animal welfare organisation texts. The corpus comprised one million words and was examined using specialist linguistic software for salient patterns in the grammar and lexis, which we then explored qualitatively (using techniques from discourse studies) to draw out the key characteristics of discourse about donkeys. Findings reveal the ways in which human dominance and social inequality (i.e. speciesist ideologies) are present in – and perpetuated by – language about donkeys. Donkeys feature in public discourses as victims in shock-value stories involving bestiality and (often extreme) acts of cruelty; as objects of entertainment in uplifting or entertaining soft-news stories; as objects of ridicule in zoomorphic representations (particularly in relation to politics and football); and as objects of pity when they are treated as commodities and consumables in geographically distant places. The findings contribute to the growing body of work on the discursive representation of animals and have important implications for individuals and organisations seeking to promote and improve the welfare of donkeys. They offer a challenge to negative stereotypes and inaccurate understandings of donkeys, as well as harmful aspects of anthropocentrism in language use. For The Donkey Sanctuary in particular, they provide a starting-point from which to build more positive perceptions of donkeys by generating effective discussion and targeting communication amongst key audiences.

The last twenty years have seen an explosion of interest in animal assisted therapy (AAT) and animal assisted activity (AAA). Equines are used in a range of human service contexts. However, very rarely are the voices of equines brought to the fore, as the majority of studies focus on the benefits to humans. Drawing on empirical research with donkeys, this paper suggests how animal assisted activities might be rethought from a more-than-human (i.e. non-anthropocentric) perspective, contributing to the field of AAA and recent developments in animal studies / human-animal interaction. This presentation draws on in-depth interviews and ethnographic observations of donkey-facilitated learning (DFL), at three regional Donkey Sanctuary centres, to understand the needs and interests of donkeys partaking in DFL sessions. Through our investigations, we revealed how AAA can be rethought in terms of animal work, as it often involves mental and emotional labour on the part of the animal. Secondly, we found that equine facilitators have a critical role to play in ‘tuning in’ to individual animal needs, to identify opportunities for positive experiences. Thirdly, we noted the importance of knowing individual donkeys for a more-than-human approach to AAA. Together, our findings highlight important steps towards less anthropocentric approaches in AAA. We have also demonstrated that more species-specific research is needed, including a greater need to consider the animal experience when designing, developing and monitoring AAAs.